I really don't know why he would. Obama is the most liberal President since FDR. Kucinich should realize that once you get into the Oval Office, things will never move as quickly as some would like, in particular, as quickly as some extreme leftists would like in this case.
Obama is as good as liberals are going to get for some time.
if Kucinich DOES run, then i'll support him. but i doubt he will
I agree that Obama's basically a moderate and a pragmatist, but I don't necessarily agree with the (widespread) notion that he's more conservative than all those presidents.
It depends a lot on what issue. On social issues like abortion and gay rights, for example, Obama is easily more liberal than all of them, even on gay rights, where he has been relatively cautious.
On civil rights and attitudes towards other cultures, he's far more liberal than any of them. Even Kennedy, who, though not personally prejudiced, was fairly cautious about supporting civil rights for blacks. Johnson had a history of racism, though he saw the necessity of pushing for civil rights legislation.
On economic issues and domestic policy, the picture is more mixed.
I don't think you can call Eisenhower more liberal than Obama - none of Eisenhower's domestic policies were more liberal than a modern Democrat - he was simply a consolidationist, not really challenging what had been put in place but not really proactively pushing that many liberal policies himself.
Nixon was basically a political opportunist, who backed large expansions of the regulatory state as cynical attempts to outflank an opposition Democratic Congress. He also was given economic advice that embodied establishment views that were strongly Keynesian.
Truman was actually far more conservative than most modern Democrats remember. His Supreme Court picks were very right-wing for example. He was very strongly pro-union and pro-universal health care, arguably moreso than any of his successors.
Kennedy was basically a moderate, who ran to Nixon's right on many issues, especially foreign policy. In office, he proved relatively ineffective in getting his domestic agenda through, and the New Frontier was relatively limited in its scope. Its major points were (1) broad-based tax cuts, (2) health coverage for the poor and the elderly (Medicare/Medicaid), and (3) increased federal aid to education. None of those are considered more liberal than today, and remember that JFK never pushed for universal health care - just coverage for the old and the sick.
Johnson of course, pushed a very aggressive domestic agenda, but again, remember that he too didn't push for anything remotely universal when it came to health care. He limited himself to Medicare and Medicaid because that's what he could pass at the time.
Really, all the Democratic presidents - including Obama - have basically been ideological pragmatists who push what they believe they can get out of Congress. Throughout the postwar era, Congress was dominated by New Deal Democrats who, though divided on social issues and civil rights, were (generally) willing to spend a great deal on domestic programs. That's less true these days, and that's the context in which Obama is operating.
Poll
